Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3q3fwb wrote
Too much misinformation out there about nuclear. People spread fear with the incidents done in the former Soviet Union and Japan. Don't care to actually educate themselves on how poorly handled and unrealistic those scenarios are for here in the US.
Warm_Aspect_4079 t1_j3q8ysu wrote
>how poorly handled and unrealistic those scenarios are for here in the US
3 Mile Island? Took 14 years to clean up at a cost of a billion dollars.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3q9faz wrote
A poorly designed plant with even more poorly trained staff over 40 years ago. Technology has vastly improved since the 70s and the plant continued to function after the incident and closed in 2019.
Many lessons have been learned and policy and regulations have very much involved to a point that another event like that is extremely improbable.
cepheus42 t1_j3qam8n wrote
> A poorly designed plant with even more poorly trained staff over 40 years ago.
Yet you said "it can't happen here." When we pointed out it DID happen here, you suddenly changed your tune and now want to say "well, it won't happen again."
Spoiler alert: it WILL happen again.
You see, the problem with nuclear is not "can we do it safely?" Because the answer to that is "sure." The problem needs to be framed as "WILL we do it safely?" And as long as America is bought and paid for by corporate interests, that answer will always be FUCK NO, because they will do everything they can to shave corners and cut costs, and safety is always one of the first things they renege on. Either we have to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they meet all safety requirements, in which case no corporation will ever bother to build another nuclear power plant in this nation because it won't be profitable enough, or we have to let them do it "their way," which will be a fucking shit show for communities where these things are built.
Nuclear came, and it went. Move on. You want all the "beauty" of nuclear with none of the drawbacks? Go geothermal. We have enough untapped geothermal energy to supply the entire world for centuries, and we're not investing in it at all.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3qcbs5 wrote
It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered. Expensive mistake but preventable and studies show it had very little effect on the people and land.
We have 54 plants, 92 reactors currently operating in the US that have proven their safety.
Geothermal is far too expensive and limited in use. Has to be placed in very specific locations and is only really feasible in the west.
Nuclear is extremely efficient especially calculating in waste material and the amount of space needed.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5trd wrote
>It will not happen again and even that scenario was fairly minor all things considered.
What a wet noodle of a response. Let's add a few more qualifiers to your statement and pretty soon nuclear waste will be safe to put into the cereal bowl.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ur78r wrote
What makes you think that industry can be trusted to handle nuclear waste safely when it has demonstrated without fail that it will choose the cheapest option and hide the potential harm resulting from shortcuts and failures?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3urp3y wrote
It's not the fault of the industry but actually the politics around it. Most 1st world countries greatly utilize nuclear and recycle it into a secondary fuel.
Temponautics t1_j3u3sbo wrote
It's all a matter of probabilities. Even if there is only a 0.0001% chance for any nuclear waste facility to fail in a given month, ... we are talking about thousands of months of waste storage. There simply is no comparison between the threat of nuclear waste versus the environmental threat from a wind turbine or solar panel. This debate is done and dusted. Find a county where people vote in their majority for having a nuclear power plant built vs combined wind and solar. Good luck with that.
There is a reason nuclear energy fails in public polling time and again. It is not because people are uninformed. It is because people are not stupid enough to fall for this BS again.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5ofs wrote
>another event like that is extremely improbable.
Over-extended hyperbole not rooted in fact, just wishful thinking.
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5ks1 wrote
TMI is not cleaned up. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j3ta26a wrote
Lol exhibit A of outdated knowledge.
eigenstien t1_j3t9l8k wrote
So, you think a government won’t cut corners? A business won’t cut corners? A major ecological event won’t happen? Go live in Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3tamnb wrote
You don't comprehend how these events happened. We have 93 reactors running in the US now that are doing just fine
eigenstien t1_j3tr6cg wrote
Nope. Not buyin it for one second.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3u1jev wrote
What?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5xmu wrote
How many reactors shut down because things are/were not "running fine"?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3u6tga wrote
How many of the reactors shutting down were built in the 60s and 70s? Technology has advanced a little bit since then
IamSauerKraut t1_j3ubbz3 wrote
Did we not go thru all these questions on another thread just a few weeks ago? Why are you repeating the same bullshit here?
IamSauerKraut t1_j3u5imf wrote
>People spread fear
With good cause.
thedanman114 t1_j4gwyu6 wrote
Ignorance?
IamSauerKraut t1_j4gylpn wrote
"Ignorance" is contrary to "good cause."
thedanman114 t1_j4h2d93 wrote
How so? Do you know the systemic differences between gen 3 American reactors and old Soviet reactor? Everything about the two is completely different.
Or the differences between gen 3 and gen 4/5 or thorium reactors?
If not, you're ignorant. Which is fine! But using that ignorance to spread fear is wrong.
IamSauerKraut t1_j4h6c25 wrote
Why do I need to know the difference between reactors? Do they produce a different type of waste? Are they any less subject to human error, subterfuge or indifference?
thedanman114 t1_j4h7e4d wrote
Actually, yes to all of those questions.
IamSauerKraut t1_j4hcln1 wrote
What different type of waste do the reactors produce? Anything with a half-life of less than 700,000 years?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3uqu7i wrote
Seriously. That would be like a pandemic happening here, or an insurrection. That only happens in the third world.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3us376 wrote
Daft comparisons.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3vqqsb wrote
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3vrj4y wrote
Oh yes so many incidents that didn't cause a whole lot of damage.
How about those lithium and cobalt mines for solar panels? Discarded solar panels leeching toxins into the ground? The physical massive amount of space wind and solar waste takes up?
Nothing is perfect. Nuclear has less issues then the other options
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j3ypwif wrote
I’m not surprised that evidence that refutes your claim(nuclear accidents couldn’t happen here) isn’t enough to convince you. You will just keep screaming into the void like a cultist.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j3yuxg6 wrote
These are hardly nuclear accidents. Some of the examples are incidents that can happen anywhere else like the dropping of heavy equipment on someone is listed. Just happened to happen at a plant. I consider a "nuclear" accident to be radiation effecting people or wildlife from the plant
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j40zjh2 wrote
Right because if they were nuclear accidents, that would make you wrong. So forget the fact that they were nuclear accidents. Forget about three mile island. In the interest of you being correct, it’s clear that the facts don’t matter.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j430v0n wrote
There's already a long discussion on 3 mile.
To sum it up, 0 dead, no notable environmental effect.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j432vv2 wrote
So, supposing that’s true, do you believe that it’s outside the realm of possibility that such an event would cause substantial harm to the environment or people?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43auc1 wrote
A repeat incident is astronomically low. That plant was built over 50 years ago, technology has advanced
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43b4tj wrote
That doesn’t answer the question. Are you a statistician and nuclear physicist and engineer? How else could you be so sure about that?
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43dzxg wrote
The hundreds of reactors being used around the world without issue. The rest of the world utilizes them quite a bit
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j43hgoa wrote
I’m not sure why you would argue with people online when you have nothing to back up your claims.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j43p67q wrote
Because you're an adult and I'm giving you the points you can look up if you choose.
France generates 70% of its electricity via nuclear. Nuclear provides 10% of the worlds power. Nuclear is reported the second largest source of low carbon power in the world. There are 440 active reactors in the world. China is pumping them out like crazy, currently have 5 in construction. In the US nuclear is generating almost 20% of our grid as is. Finland is 33% nuclear energy production. Sweden is 30%, people in the US like to compare to nordic countries often.
It's very safe. Very efficient. Very good for the environment
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4432ew wrote
You’re forgetting how incompetent and corrupt Americans are. You sound like Donald Trump promoting coal. It’s not safe, it requires extremely rare and dangerous materials to produce. If society collapses the plants become an immediate problem. It has been a problem in Ukraine for about a year now. Compare that to wind and solar arrays which pose no risk to humanity and the environment. Good thing you have absolutely no decision making power on this.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j44l32i wrote
Wind and solar have no risk??? Also made with toxic chemicals that leech into the environment. Killing far more wildlife than nuclear and taking up far more landfill space. Doubled demand on lithium alongside EV cars. Ever see what a lithium mine looks like? We're already looking at 720 tons of unrecyclable wind trash, the solar panel craze is looking double maybe even triple electronics trash. That stuff isn't environmentally friendly lol
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45um70 wrote
Find me one instance if people getting killed by a horrific wind and solar accident that made the surrounding area uninhabitable. Rhetorically, since you’re a fucking idiot and that doesn’t exist. Or maybe wind and solar bombs? No referring to comic books though.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xdld wrote
-
You're referring to events that will never happen in the US.
-
The point of solar and wind is to be good for the environment, which it isn't.
-
People die in the mines for the materials, wind turbines kill over 500k birds a year, destroys environment by finding space to discard the waste.
-
Grow up with the name calling kid. Nuclear is the safest energy source we have available
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xt0e wrote
You are so dense, there’s no point in engaging in civil debate.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45xxji wrote
It is the other way around. You have zero comprehension on the benefits of nuclear above all other options. You'd rather fill landfills with more toxic trash
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y1vc wrote
Try reading boy
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45y0c9 wrote
No u!
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45vzav wrote
A screening program a year later in 2012 found that more than a third (36%) of children in Fukushima Prefecture have abnormal growths in their thyroid glands.[215] As of August 2013, there have been more than 40 children newly diagnosed with thyroid cancer and other cancers in Fukushima prefecture as a whole.
No problem there right? So what if kids get cancer! It’s totally safe! That could never happen here! Certainly not in a country where even the government tried to cover up the polluted water in Flint, Michigan.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45wt3w wrote
It's almost like Fukushima isn't relevant. How many 9.0 magnitude earthquakes followed by 40m tall waves happen in the US?
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45xxwn wrote
Sure, let’s get a nuclear plant going in Florida. We never have weather events here. You are willfully ignoring so much evidence contrary to your views, it’s kind of sad.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45y3nm wrote
So we don't put one in southern Florida? It's not a difficult concept. There are plenty of places in the US that are risk free
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j45ym3y wrote
“Risk free” Let’s be sure to consult Super-Lychee8852 on the risks to nuclear power generation here. This guys knows what’s up.
Super-Lychee8852 t1_j45ytgv wrote
Cope
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4600w1 wrote
The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.
Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4605tk wrote
Good day to you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments